Some Fairbury Landlords Would Like To See The Inspection Program Go Away

By Gordon HopkinsCurrently, the City of Fairbury requires that all rental properties have a certificate of occupancy before they may be rented out. A number of Fairbury landlords would like to see that program changed or eliminated outright.Kathy Herman is one of those landlords and she spoke to the Fairbury City Council about the matter at a meeting on Tuesday, January 20, 2026.According to the city’s website, “As of April 1, 2015 no person shall rent, lease or occupy any rental dwelling or rental dwelling unit that does not have a Certificate of Occupancy under the rental ordinance from the City. The Certificate of Occupancy is not transferable between landlords or rental units and shall be valid for 12 months following its date of issuance.”The stated purpose of the program, “is to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in rental units and the neighborhoods which host these structures by enforcing Building codes, Property Maintenance codes, and the ordinances of the City of Fairbury, which will preserve and enhance property values, and promote a quality of living consistent with a healthy, safe, and prosperous City.”QualificationsInspections are normally completed by a Code Enforcement Officer. Herman questioned the qualifications of those doing the inspections, “The inspection checklist includes major structural and mechanical items such as electrical systems, foundations, load bearing, structural members, heating systems and ventilations. Landlords have asked, what qualifications does the Code Enforcement Officer have to determine whether electrical systems have adequate capacity and amperages, whether the foundation walls are structurally unsound or whether heating system is properly sized for that dwelling?“For example, the checklist states that electrical system must be capable of supporting the need of a home without endangering residents. Determining adequate amperage panel capacity and load calculations typically requires electrical training and licensing,” said Herman. “Yet, inspections by code enforcement often do not even include opening panels or performing any technical evaluation.”Unequal TreatmentHerman also told the council that she does not believe the program is being consistently applied, “Landlords have also observed that inspections vary significantly in time and thoroughness. Some inspections reportedly only taking a few minutes, while others are far more detailed. This inconsistently leads many landlords to question whether inspections are truly about safety, or rather enforcement depends on who pushes back and who does not.”Rentals versus Owner-Occupied HousingAnother example of what Herman called unequal treatment is that owner-occupied is not subject to the same rules as rentals. One example she used was the recommendation by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for four-inch numbers on rental units. Herman asked, “If that is truly a safety requirement, why does it only apply to rental properties and not every home within the EMS district?”Not All Landlords Are Abiding by the ProgramThere are penalties for not obtaining a certificate of occupancy. According to the city, “Any violation of the rental ordinance may subject the violator to a fine of up to $500 per day the violation continues, or may subject the violator to a civil lawsuit brought against them by the City to permanently enjoin them from violating the ordinance, subject to contempt of court proceedings and further penalties should violators still not comply.”However, Herman said, “There are some landlords that refuse to comply with the program completely and are allowed to still continue renting their units without inspections and certificates of occupancy.”After the City Council meeting, Mayor Kelly Davis confirmed this is true but told FJN he is unsure how to enforce the rule without punishing the tenants along with the landlords, “They aren’t supposed to be able to rent the home because they didn’t get a certificate of occupancy, but they are anyway. We are trying to find out how we proceed legally. I don’t want to shut down a home because it didn’t get an inspection and start making families homeless, and I don’t know if we can get the county attorney on board to follow up with tickets and fines to the landlords that don’t participate. This isn’t fair to the landlords that are participating. That’s our big hurdle.”Other LandlordsThis is not a new issue. In 2015, another landlord, Pamela Beasley, send a letter to the mayor and city council that read, in part, “Being a landlord here is not only hard work but enormously frustrating. We experience perpetual damage to our properties with little legal remedy. This intervention on my business is the last straw for me. All of my present tenants work in town, as do most renters. Kindly remember that these folks not only work here but they use city services, they shop here and their children are part of the school enrollment statistic (which results in tax dollars for our schools). What happens to these people if there is not affordable housing? I do know other landlords who are also questioning the validity of owning income property here.”The letter also noted, “I am very disappointed that no property owners were represented when this program was contrived by the council. I think our input could have been beneficial in developing a plan that would be more efficient, and certainly, more just.”While Herman was the only landlord who spoke at the meeting, other landlords indicated their support. She provided the council with the signatures of 10 landlords: David C. Lange, Leroy Bast, Dennis Wurm, Doris Reinke, Justin Schultis, Mick Vocelka, Pamela S. Beasley, Keith Corbin, Ann Southwick and Kevin Hoeting.Two others were out of town and unable to sign but indicated their support: Daved Holes and Jose Quintana.2025 Landlord MeetingThe mayor previously met with landlords on December 1, 2025. The mayor told FJN, “The meeting came about because I was talking to Dan (Lufkin), the Code Enforcement Officer about complaints he and I were getting and how some landlords were not participating in the program. We then decided to call a meeting and bring as many landlords together as we could to hear their complaints and try to explain why he was doing things the way he was and to get a feel for their ideas for the program and what direction we should take it in. A couple of them suggested we get rid of the program and thought I could just make it happen. I told them I didn’t have that authority and explained that they needed to bring it to the full council and sell their ideas to them.”“We listened to them, they listened to us, it never got really heated and everyone heard the same thing at the same time,” said Mayor Davis. “I hope the program doesn’t go away, but I understand some of their frustrations also.”What Do Landlords Want?Herman recommended going to a voluntary system, “Landlords live in this community. We care about it, but safety can be achieved without coercion. We respectively propose that the city considers removing this program and possibly converting it to a voluntary, incentive-based program that is available to both rental and home owner occupied homes. Such a program would promote safety, encourage cooperation, reduce conflict and reduce legal risk for the city.”

Gage County Crime Stoppers Looks to Increase Awareness in Wymore Area

FPS Board Approves New Superintendent Contract

Related Articles

Albert Scherbarth

City Votes To Move Forward With Water Treatment Plant

State Receiving Over $7 Million In Grants For Waste Reduction

Bridal Expo